All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 10, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
41:20
20240910_eric-weinstein-on-presidential-debate-beyond
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Biden's Fitness and Nuclear War 00:13:51
The media is absolutely pathologically uninterested in the idea that we're in a half war with Russia and we don't know who the commander-in-chief is at a functional level.
The entire political charade has come crashing down.
Nobody can believe anything that is being said.
You've suggested that Trump may not be allowed to become president again.
How could that manifest itself?
Bolden Donald Trump with no next election cycle to concern himself with is absolutely occupying people involved in what you might call the international order.
We don't know whether the Kamala we've gotten used to is going to be on that debate stage.
Well, Dr. Eric Weinstein, who first coined the term intellectual dark web, is a superstar of the alternative media space.
Millions watch him for his challenging and sometimes contrarian views on science, culture, and politics.
In February this year, he predicted what he calls the switch, the replacement of President Joe Biden with Kamala Harris.
I don't know if people are going to look at Kamala Harris as the likely commander-in-chief.
Why are you laughing?
Kamala Harris is like, she's become a meme of a meme of a meme.
So absent from public life, as far as I can see, that it's hilarious.
Do you not think it's hilarious?
Oh, it's hysterically funny.
You're talking about Kamala Harris being in charge of the world's greatest nuclear superpower.
It's a screen.
Wesley now rails against how readily the switch has been normalized and says that even as a lifelong Democrat, the party's lost its mind.
So who's he backing?
What are his predictions for the debate, the election, and the world beyond November the 5th?
Returning to our sentence, Eric Weinstein joins me now.
Eric, great to have you back.
Pierce, good to be with you.
You called it absolutely spot on, the switch.
So let me get, first of all, your take on how you think the switch has gone.
Well, you know, my basic take on it was to talk to geriatric neurologists and try to figure out where President Biden was in his neurodegeneration.
And I think it's been fairly clear to people in the medical field that he's suffering classic signs of neurodegeneration in Parkinson's.
So in some sense, I feel like it wasn't so much a bizarre prediction as the silencing, the self-silencing, if you will, of the entire medical community that was cued into what was going on.
And the fact that nobody's even talking about the fact that we have an executive branch that appears to be in full self-driving mode, controlled from where we do not know.
You know, I think there are three nuclear footballs.
One travels with the president, one with the vice president, and one with the designated survivor at times.
I have no idea what the plan is for the six or seven minute window that you would have as commander-in-chief.
So I think it's going terribly.
Yeah.
Well, this is the thing.
We're just not asking questions.
And what's more, the Democratic Party, my party, is silencing the very questions we should be asking because none of us know what is running the country.
And given that we are in a half-proxy war with our main thermonuclear rival, it is completely unforgivable that the American people would not be consulted as to what is happening in the executive branch.
Yeah, it's so bizarre that we see endless pictures of Joe Biden on the beach, but he's still president of the United States.
And yet you've got Kamala Harris, who now is the nominee.
He's stepped aside, but he wasn't fit to be the nominee for an election in November.
But apparently he's fit to be president of the United States until January.
To anybody with the slightest touch of Asperger's, there's no way to go along with this.
It's just, it doesn't make any logical sense.
What I've been assured privately is that there is a team running the White House far better than Joe Biden, and that I'm supposed to be elated because of the high competency of the team that has effectively replaced the president.
Now, these are levels of self-deception and self-justification that I just can't participate in.
But what's fascinating is that this is what I've called an anti-interesting event.
The media is absolutely pathologically uninterested in the idea that we're in a half war with Russia and we don't know who the commander-in-chief is at a functional level, given the tiny window that we might have if nuclear weapons were used.
Right.
And the reality is, we saw what Biden was like at 9 p.m. Eastern on that debate stage.
If the nuclear call comes at midnight, 2 a.m., 4 a.m., it's, as you say, a six, seven minute window.
Does anybody seriously think that Joe Biden at that time of night is going to be in any cognitive condition to make a call of that magnitude?
I don't.
Well, this is the interesting part.
Every branch of the decision tree, if you decide that it is Biden in charge, that's terrifying.
If you decide that it isn't Biden in charge, that's equally terrifying in a totally different way.
If you think about the fact that the press isn't all over this rudderless situation, that's maximally terrifying.
So I think that the key response is to just go along with whatever this is.
Now, keep in mind that since the end of May, when Donald Trump was convicted of felony counts, we've had a disastrous debate, an assassination attempt, something like a palace coup, a rudderless executive branch.
Nothing about this election cycle is in any way normal.
And within essentially a week or maybe eight days of each other, there were attempts to remove both Donald Trump and Joe Biden from the electoral process.
Right.
Quite extraordinary.
I want to play a clip that I know has exercised you enormously.
It's of California Governor Gavin Newsom reacting to the switch.
Let's do it.
How are you feeling about the switch?
I mean, the switch.
Now we went through a very open process, a very inclusive process.
I was bottom up.
I don't know if you know that.
Yes, that's what I've been told to say.
And you responded to this by saying, I think this is the most directly I've ever been lied to by a politician.
It's a lie preceded by a confession.
I've never seen that.
I mean, it really was.
It was like the whole secret game laid bare in literally one long sentence.
Well, it's very similar to when Gavin Newson cleaned up San Francisco because Zhe was expected for dinner.
You know, the entire political charade has come crashing down.
Nobody can believe anything that is being said.
And so that's your cue that that's not what the game is anymore.
It's not a question of getting people to believe.
These are instructions that you're being sent as to what you were supposed to act as if you believe, right?
You're supposed to act as if you believe that there was an inclusive process that took one of the least loved politicians of all time, Kamala Harris, and elevated her to America's sweetheart within the space of a few hours.
I just don't understand how rational people who are supposed to be our doctors, our accountants, our engineers who build bridges that don't collapse, how anybody who can solve a partial differential equation is supposed to go along with this, I have no clue.
Because you have to understand that technical people, it's not personal.
You know, there's just right and there's wrong.
And everything about this is so completely wrong from first principles that I would say that what we're doing is we're telling everyone with an IQ over 85, you're unwelcome as part of the electorate because you're simply not going to be able to hold the illusion.
It's completely true.
And there was a willful deceit of the American people for a lengthy period of time around Joe Biden's actual condition, which was then laid bare with that debate where there was no hiding place anymore.
There's also been a willful deceit, I think, carried on about who was responsible for Biden standing aside.
He wants, you know, was told it was his decision in the end, et cetera.
But we know from well-sourced reports that Nancy Pelosi basically went to him and said, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, but you're out.
Cut to the DNC convention.
And there's the same Nancy Pelosi with her I Love Joe placard looking quite shame-faced, it must be said.
And then you cut to George Clooney, who wrote the op-ed piece, which precipitated the knives plunging into Biden's back, now wanting us to believe that he's the greatest president in terms of courage since George Washington.
This kind of whitewashing of culpability by the people who executed Biden's political career, I think is just as willful in its quality of deceit as the ridiculous farce about his health to start with.
Well, you know, when Joe Pesci gets invited into the middle of a cornfield for a meeting, he knows it's probably not going to go well.
I think that you can only do weekend at Biden's for so long.
This has been a progressing neurodegenerative condition for four years.
He has not been, in my opinion, fit for office during the entire length of his presidency.
And if you check my old tweets, you'll see that I'm talking constantly about the fact that he's simply not in good shape.
Now, Donald Trump is, I will also point out, 78 years old.
He is, in my opinion, far too old for the most demanding job that we have in times of war.
And quite frankly, we normalized all this with Dianne Feinstein.
There is something about these silent and boomer generation politicians that do not understand that they have to leave a world to their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
And so they sit there as if they're going to go on forever.
And I'm sort of surprised that they haven't introduced legislation that says that we shouldn't discriminate against the recently deceased and that they should be able to hold office as well.
This has just gotten to a point where it's an embarrassment.
And we have to realize that we need to pass the baton to different generations.
I mean, George Washington, he won two terms and would have won a third very easily, but he decided to stand aside because he felt there should be term limits and the rest is history.
Do you think there should be an age limit?
Should there be an age limit now on who is president of the United States?
There isn't the bottom end.
Should there be at the top end?
The short answer is yes, it should be something like the demands on an airplane pilot.
But I think more important than the rules is that there was a time when people understood what these duties were and how important they were.
And I commend everyone to watch Neville Chamberlain's resignation speech, which was the ultimate flipped bird to Herr Hitler in Germany, because the idea was that Hitler was counting on Britain to tear itself apart with rivalrous infighting.
And there's a time when you just have to put the politics aside and say that there are bigger fish to fry.
I think that what we're doing here is we're normalizing pathological behavior on behalf of two generations that will not take the hint that they have been bad for America.
You've suggested that Trump may not be allowed to become president again.
There was recently, obviously, the assassination attempt, which very nearly killed him, probably should have killed him.
When you say won't be allowed to, how could that manifest itself in terms of preventing it if he was to look like he was going to win the election?
Well, if you'll recall when I said that Joe Biden might have a debilitating event back in February and that he might not make it to November, which is what I thought was almost certain to take place, I was vague.
The Illusion of Primary Choice 00:03:47
And the reason for being vague is that I'm not Nostradamus.
I can just tell the broad outlines.
And I can tell you that the number of international players who are deathly afraid that an emboldened Donald Trump with no next election cycle to concern himself with is absolutely occupying people involved in what you might call the international order, what Mike Benz calls the rules-based international order.
Whatever that is, there are many ways to attempt to make sure that Donald Trump never becomes president.
And it's not for me to explore all of the different devices.
I would highly recommend that, just to begin with, reading the Time magazine article from the 2020 election cycle, which effectively was a confession of a conspiracy against Donald Trump.
You've talked of the magician's choice.
Explain that theory.
Well, sometimes this goes under the name of forcing among illusionists.
It's an idea whereby you have something planned provided the member of the audience believes that they have willfully made a choice, which in fact was never their choice to make.
So whenever the magician can thrust cards or cups or balls at a member of the audience in a way that the person has the illusion of choice, but in fact, the magician knows what to do so that the person actually does not have a choice.
That is an entire field of magic.
Now, most people who aren't illusionists don't really even know that the concept of magician's choice exists.
The issue of magicians' choice takes place in party politics whereby after at least 1968 in the disastrous Democratic Convention in Chicago, the parties tried to institute primaries without necessarily giving away the right to choose who they wanted to represent them in the general election.
And so you had things, for example, like invisible primaries, which is a concept that was frequently bandied about within the Beltway in Washington, D.C., which the rest of the country wasn't really let in on.
Invisible primaries had to do with amassing war chests to keep certain people out.
Or another practice, for example, is pre-committing populist candidates to whoever the primary selects.
And so you say, of course, you will select whoever we choose in the primary, right?
And then that person is forced to say, of course I will.
And by that move, what you do is you take all of the people who are ready to leave the party, who are fed up with the nonsense, you get them to back a populist candidate, and then when the populist candidate craters, that person throws his or her support to the nominee, dashing the hopes of everybody who thought maybe this time it would be different.
And so that is a time-honored sort of quiet practice.
The superdelegates that were made famous during the time of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all of these techniques, staggering the primaries, are all designed to make sure that we have an illusion of choice.
And what you really should say is that there's a modicum of choice.
There's not much choice, but there's a little choice.
And whatever little choice there is is supposed to field two candidates, one from each party, that are both acceptable to the international order so that we can hold a free and fair binary election between the two.
Cheney's Call for Voters to Lie 00:14:55
We have had no plan for anything outside of that.
I think there have been 42 straight elections since Millard Fillmore as the last non-Democrat, non-Republican in the White House that have all gone for a Democrat or a Republican.
But the only big difference was that in 2016, Donald Trump became the first politician never to have served in political office or in the military.
So he was an absolute outsider.
He made it through the primary screen.
Then he made it through the general after being told he was a 20-to-1 underdog.
And there was no plan.
And so the fact is that they left open this tiny hole for an actual Democratic event.
And Donald Trump contorted himself and squozed right through.
Do you think he's going to win this election?
Do I think Trump is going to win?
Yeah.
Yeah, likely.
I think that if you look at the theory of Timur Quran and preference falsification, one of the reasons that you had this illusion of a Hillary victory is a certainty, is that people have to lie about their support for Trump against Harris.
Even if they don't like Trump, if they simply say, I support Donald Trump, a giant percentage of their life is put at risk.
And this is in part the particular magic of the Democratic Party, is that it can make your job, your family life, your marriage, your relationship to your children precarious if you so much as entertain that you might veer to the other party and take a vacation for an election cycle or two.
What did you make of what I thought was a preposterous situation of Dick Cheney, of all people, suddenly aligning himself publicly with an endorsement for Kamala Harris along with his daughter, Liz,
but also Kamala Harris warmly embracing the endorsement by saying she was proud to be endorsed by Dick Cheney, the man literally called Darth Cheney for 25 years because he was the béte noir of all aggressive liberals in America.
Well, first of all, the whole thing is completely absurd and not true.
Dick Cheney is not endorsing Kamala Harris.
He's endorsing the only candidate who is pre-subscribed not to strongly push against this vast network of interlocking treaties, obligations, and understandings.
So there is exactly one game in town if your focus is on the international order and making sure that as it phrases in its distance from World War II, it is not put unduly at risk.
So what you see is Dick Cheney is simply making his, he's doing exactly what you would expect from the perspective of somebody who's very worried about, let's say, NATO or very worried about trade agreements and the like.
And so I think that whatever interpretation, it's not that he suddenly likes Kamala Harris's folksy black slang.
It's much more that Dick Cheney knows exactly what's going on.
He's making what I think is a sound call for Dick Cheney.
I will also point out that Dick Cheney is one of the most brilliant politicians that we've had in office, whether you love him or hate him.
And he's a much more complicated most Americans don't know a lot about people from Wyoming.
And I would say Dick Cheney and Alan Simpson before him represent a very unique strain in the American political tapestry.
And I think that our understanding of Dick Cheney is poor.
The journey you've taken politically is interesting, I think.
I think a lot of people mistakenly assume you are a conservative or Republican, but you're not.
You're kind of old school Democrat to your bootstraps.
Progressive family, never voted Republican yet.
I mean, I could, but no.
I mean, I think it's very funny.
People assume that because I'm a Democrat, I must be voting for Kamala.
They assume that because I've worked for Peter Thiel, I must be voting for Trump.
People just aren't very smart or thoughtful.
They don't really, they're trying to figure out which team you support.
And just tell us which binary mistake you wish to make.
It feels a lot like Robert Frost's poem about fire and ice.
I don't really understand.
I mean, I've taken money from George Soros and Peter Thiel, so go figure.
I think that the idea of thinking for yourself and being truly independent, people just don't understand that.
One of the things I find very strange is that I worked for Peter as a prominent Trump critic, calling Trump an existential risk.
And I got no credit for the idea that I was clearly, in some people's minds, putting my job at risk.
But in fact, you know, Peter and I have had a great relationship because he very much values disparate viewpoints.
I mean, if Trump was to win and offered you a position in his administration, precisely for that reason, that maybe second time round he wanted to have some disparate voices, smart voices who may challenge what he's thinking or planning, would you accept a job as a service to your country?
I mean, 100%.
And I'd do the same if Kamala asked.
You know, NSF and Department of Energy are things that are near and dear to my heart and have gone in directions that I'm very worried about.
But absolutely.
I mean, the issue is, do you love your country enough to serve?
And I think the answer has to be yes.
If you want this amazing miracle that is the United States of America to get back on track and to continue into the future, given everyone else in the world is depending on us, geez, I'd be, of course I would.
Have you decided A, whether you're going to vote in November and if so, who for?
Have you made that decision yet?
No.
Do you think you definitely will vote?
Do you believe you should, as a duty, vote, or could you see yourself setting it out?
Well, let's put it this way.
I feel like this has been rigged as a way for everyone to lose credibility.
I have four options.
I can vote for one of these two candidates.
I can not vote.
Or I can vote for a third party candidate who is not going to win.
Every single one of those options makes me look horrible until you think about all four of them and realize that every single person is in a no-way out situation.
Now, I will point out that I'm not entirely positive that Kamala and Trump will be the candidates in November.
I'm definitely thinking that it is likely, when before I thought it was very unlikely that both Biden and Trump would make it to November.
But I cannot tell you what is going to happen.
So much has happened this cycle that you have to keep an open mind that we may have some stunning changes, reversals.
And I will say this.
JD Vance is a friend of mine.
And I'd vote for JD Vance in a heartbeat because the person who's campaigning is JD Vance versus the person I know is JD Vance are two different things.
I don't much care for the campaigner JD Vance, but JD Vance, the actual human being, is somebody that I know, I trust in many ways, and he really, I promise you this, he really, really cares about the people that progressive Americans used to care about, which is the out-of-luck working poor American families, and in particular the deplorables, the hillbillies,
and the people that the Democratic Party under the Clintons just shat all over and walked away from.
Well, there's an interesting column actually in the New York Times by Nicholas Christoph.
I think this morning it was published, where he talks about this very issue, warns Democrats to stop demonizing Trump voters, in particular MAGA voters, saying that you've got to separate the man from the voters, that if you try and over-demonize tens of millions of Americans simply because they intend or like Trump, then that's a bad thing.
Would you agree with that?
No.
Really?
No.
Who the hell is Nicholas Kristoff to tell people don't look down on Trump's voters, just look down on Trump?
A Trump voter is simply, as I've said before, somebody who believes that the expected value of a Trump presidency minus the expected value of a Kamala presidency is positive.
It doesn't tell you whether the person even likes Trump.
I can tell you that there are people who absolutely detest Donald Trump, who would walk in front of a bullet to save him because they believe that he is a better choice for the Republic.
I think that what the left has to do is to go far beyond what Nicholas Kristoff is saying.
Save your pity, Mr. Kristoff.
The real issue is that Trump voters are often extremely smart.
They're often paying attention.
They often dislike Trump intensely.
I think that the problem is that the American left has created this image of a knuckle-dragging moron in flyover country, as the coasts refer to the heartland of the United States.
And they view that person as this benighted poor soul who's just confused.
And if they don't grow up and get their thumb out of their mouth and realize that these are their fellow Americans and that many of the Trump voters are smarter than they are, we're not going to get anywhere.
So I think it's really important to repudiate what Christoph is saying.
It's repugnant.
You're big friends of Joe Rogan, who has an enormous influence around the world.
He's never interviewed Trump and kind of suggested that he doesn't want to.
Would it make a difference if he did?
Trump's doing a lot of podcasts at the moment.
Sure.
No, sure.
Sure, it would make a difference.
Yeah.
Is Rogan another person that is misunderstood in terms of where he leans politically, do you think?
No, I think people know Joe really.
I mean, the great thing about Joe is that he's not wildly different when you catch him in an unguarded moment as he is on his show.
I mean, Joe and I drink on his show.
He talks openly about his drug use.
He said that, you know, he would vote for Trump over Biden.
I don't know what he said about Kamala Harris.
I think what he doesn't want is he doesn't want to get used.
And, you know, ultimately, Joe is a guy.
At some point, Joe, Sam Harris and I had a conversation about trying to do a presidential debate off of the main cycle only to find out that the parties have effectively locked in debates as a privilege to be showered only on legacy media.
So I think it would be a wonderful thing to have people like Joe asking questions.
I totally agree.
But yeah, they should be, I'd love to see you doing it, but I think that the key issue is why is it taking place on ABC and CBS and all of these legacy structures?
And it's because, as Tulsi once said to me, you have to run for president once to know how the game is actually fixing.
Yeah, and it is a game and it has the rules of the establishment and that's the way it gets conducted.
This debate could be, I mean, the last one was completely historic and transformative, it turned out.
This one, I've got a feeling people are trying to sort of downplay the potential for that again, but it could make or break Kamala Harris.
I mean, we kind of know what Trump's like, and we know he's a very effective, quite brutal debater who's demolished most of his opponents in the presidential octagon, for want of a better phrase.
But if he has Kamala Harris in his sights and takes her down in front of America, is that going to be it for her, do you think?
Well, I mean, first of all, if I were Donald Trump, I would study what Tulsi did to Kamala, which was extremely effective.
The problem is, is that was one younger woman of color to another.
And a lot has happened in Donald Trump's life since his debates of old, because he's gotten older.
He's survived a near-death experience.
And I'm sorry to say, but I believe anybody who's gone through what he's gone through may be something of a changed person.
That's what happens to us when we have a brush with death and we're forced to actually reflect on the fragility of life.
I also think that the optics are very important.
I have a saying that mirrors Say's law, which is optics create their own substance, or the optics are the substance to ape McLuhan.
What it means is that Donald Trump is going to have to worry about being a 78-year-old white man associated with vast wealth debating a female brown of hue.
And that is not a great situation for Donald Trump.
Because if he pulls some of the same stuff that he pulled on Hillary, it could easily backfire.
Optics Create Their Own Substance 00:07:21
So I think this is actually an incredibly novel situation.
It's also the case that Kamala has been in a bizarre, cackling, minor character role for a long time.
And I think that one thing that people may be surprised by is that her level of intelligence and competency may have been hidden because she wasn't supposed to be a thinking person unto herself.
I don't know whether the Kamala we've gotten used to is going to be on that debate stage.
It may be a Kamala Harris who is far more of a normal human being.
I think that there's something about being vice president that is just, it's a very strange role.
If you remember what it did to Hubert Humphrey, it's certainly changed a lot of people for the period of time that they sat in that position.
How do you feel, Eric, about the American election system, for want of a better phrase?
I'll tell you why I say that.
In the UK, we often get wildly different results at elections.
There's just been a massive swing to the Labour Party, for example.
They won with a massive majority against the Conservatives who've been in power for many years.
And that happens from time to time on a kind of cycle.
But in America, it just seems that the election is getting tighter and tighter and tighter.
You know, the last one was decided by 40,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
Nate Silver told me a few days ago, this one looks just as tight and just the same split.
Is that healthy for America?
Is the system broken if it comes down all the time in a country of 340 million people to 40,000, 50,000 people in a few states?
It's an interesting question.
Partially it has to do with the ability to target elections.
So that innovations developed by Frank Luntz, for example, where you could focus group people and find out how they reacted to particular phraseology, if you can use sort of micro-demographics where you can target ads and spends, you know, right down to the individual.
All of these things lead to these nail-biting calculations by virtue of the fact that you don't want to win by promising more than you have to.
And so in part, you could win in a landslide by being very clear about what everybody's really angry about.
But then your party would be very upset because that's giving away the goodies that enrage the public and that insiders depend on.
So, you know, what do I make of it?
One, I don't know that it's going to be a super close election.
It just strikes me that we have way too many people who know things about the future.
And I don't really know that anybody knows that it's going to be a nail biter in November.
What's more, I personally am very struck by how strange the emphasis on mail-in ballots and voting without ID.
I don't understand these as Democrat-Republican issues.
I understand something about accessibility.
I don't understand the push not to have voter ID.
And I do worry that the Electoral College may not be enough of a corrective mechanism if the powers that be have decided that the American electorate has been taken in and is embracing a terrible path.
Let me just say a couple words about that.
We, the American people, can't know what's going on in the State Department, in the Defense Department, and in the intelligence community.
So we have these fiduciaries, if you will, that are supposed to represent our interests.
And I could easily imagine that we are engaged in some strategy that the insiders believe cannot be toppled lest it set the world on fire with a series of conflagrations, the likes of which we've never seen.
So in such a circumstance, those people may be lying to themselves, then they may be self-serving.
But it is also the case that, you know, as you and I have discussed before, I just don't understand the Ukraine situation.
I'm not saying I'm for it or against it.
I'm saying it was never put in front of me in a way that I could understand what we are doing, particularly after the 2004 extension of NATO privileges to former Soviet republics.
And so in this circumstance, I really do worry that Washington has sort of moved on from the electorate.
They understand that the electorate is a problem, and they're not so thrilled about free speech.
They're not so thrilled about people voting.
And honestly, I really feel like the State Department should probably be leading a, well, I don't know what to call it, an approach to the American people and say, look, we have been acting on your behalf.
We can't talk to you about everything because it involves geopolitics and strategy.
We do think there's corruption in the system.
Maybe we've made some missteps.
But we've got a serious problem that every four years we can't put the whole thing at risk with candidates who might topple that order.
And, you know, I would say that Tulsi, RFK Jr., and Donald Trump were all people who were willing to threaten that order in order to end the cycles of wars abroad.
And I have a very strong sense that all of those people are considered to be children from the perspective of the permanent geopolitical management group.
Finally, Eric, what is the one thing, whoever wins the election, what is the one most important thing that a new president of the United States could do that would significantly transform the United States for the better?
Disclosure.
On everything.
I mean, look, well, it's not on everything, because you can't.
There's a lot of, if we do not get this COVID disclosure done about why were 77 Nobel laureates enlisted to protect the EcoHealth Alliance and a zoologist named Peter Dashik in the Wuhan lab situation in China,
if we don't figure out what happened with JFK and why we don't have all of the documents, even though it's 60 years on, if we cannot ask why it is that our inflation gauge is broken and doesn't reflect what everybody's experiencing at the pump and in our supermarkets, if we cannot fundamentally ask why do we seem to be encircling Moscow, if we cannot get to ground truth really anywhere,
Breaking the System of Deception 00:01:24
if we can't talk about what is going on with this reproductive mutilation situation with our children, if we cannot have open conversations about these sorts of things, we are going to continue to search for shadowy figures.
And that's going to be a disaster for everyone.
It's going to be the Jews that are the problem.
It's going to be the World Economic Forum that's behind this all.
It's going to be the Freemasons.
It's going to be everything that we can't see is going to be suspected of denaturing our country.
The most important thing is to go back to the hearings of the 70s and 80s, the church hearing, the church and pike committees, the Iran-Contra, all of the hearings that exposed what we were actually up to so that we can self-correct, including putting this UFO thing to rest.
We need disclosure because what we're so used to is being lied to that we are effectively completely inured to this.
And we're not, we're insensitive.
We don't feel anything.
This is not a normal state of affairs.
We've got to get rid of the level of lying and deception.
Eric Weinstein, brilliant to talk to you again.
Thank you so much for coming on uncensored.
Thanks for having me, Pierce.
Really appreciate it.
Export Selection